In reference to
Maybe the openness of the Internet owes a lot to this tradition.
let me offer a comment regarding the RFCs. There might be a general
connection, but there wasn't an explicit connection. The decision that RFCs
would be freely available and without restriction regarding use
Are we conflating back doors in implementations with back doors in protocol
specifications? It's certainly a conceptual possibility for there to be a back
door in a protocol specification, but I don't recall ever hearing about one.
On the other hand, back doors, both intended and unintended,
I'm in agreement.
We have not had any standards so far regarding maintenance of the validity of
contact information. For example, my contact information for the April 1, 1995
RFC 1776 is:
Steve Crocker
CyberCash, Inc.
2086 Hunters Crest Way
Vienna, VA 22181
Phone: +1 703
Crocker d...@dcrocker.net wrote:
On 9/9/2013 1:27 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
Actually, I interpret the chemistry professor's comment in a
different light. It would be possible to design a system where:
o the standard end user software doesn't facilitate editing the other
person's text
Actually, I interpret the chemistry professor's comment in a different light.
It would be possible to design a system where:
o the standard end user software doesn't facilitate editing the other person's
text, and
o each piece of text is signed.
The result would be a system where a recipient
Well, actually, the IETF is a continuation of the Network Working Group, which
formed organically in late 1968. We're a few days short of the 45 year mark.
The NWG had open meetings, developed the layered architecture and published
RFCs.
Steve
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 27, 2013, at 9:07
for there to be some tension, competition and rivalry
among our institutions, but we have all been part of the same grand enterprise,
we all share the same core values, and we all work toward the same goal of an
open, innovative, expanding Internet.
Steve Crocker,
Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
On May 17
I too have always found at least one of the Crocker brothers {suspicious,
smart, funny, irrelevant, prescient, handsome, annoying, etc.}. I've never been
able to tell which is which :)
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 5, 2013, at 9:58 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
Loa == Loa
In 1974 I moved into a condo complex in Marina del Rey near USC-ISI. As has
been my usual practice, I ordered two POTS lines and I went to the phone
company to get the phones. The condo was pre-wired with jacks in each of the
major rooms. The phones I got from the phone company came with
. The form
factor was the same.
This was GTE territory.
Steve
On Jan 3, 2013, at 10:36 AM, John C Klensin john-i...@jck.com wrote:
--On Thursday, January 03, 2013 10:10 -0500 Steve Crocker
st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
In 1974 I moved into a condo complex in Marina del Rey near
USC-ISI
After watching the traffic on this, I'm thinking a memorial page is perhaps not
the first place to focus attention. Instead, write a memorial RFC for each
person you think made a significant contribution to the IETF. The RFC
Editorial process will provide some vetting on quality. Use
I'll bet Dublin would be rated higher if the meetings had been downtown. Same
for Vienna.
Steve
On Aug 7, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
Hi,
My top three repeat venues would be Prague, Minneapolis and Vancouver. Great
meeting venues, with everything you need nearby.
My least
This is essentially correct. The apparent conceptual difference is that a
variable length address looks more like source routing. The end system owns
only a small part of the total address; the rest is the network portion,
fashioned to seem like a source route. Depending on how the address
The word alignment issue was very strong and the router people had considerably
more influence than the host folks. I tried to propose variable length
addressing using four bit nibbles in August 1974 and I got no traction at all.
Steve
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2012, at 6:31 PM, Bob
I was at the MIT AI Lab 1967-68 and at ARPA/IPTO 1961-74 where I funded and
reviewed the Stanford AI Lab. Later I based my PhD thesis on McCarthy's memo
on situational fluents. I also designed but didn't implement Lisp for the
Sigma 7.
Later I ran research groups and insisted on Lisp as a
Nathaniel,
Thanks for passing this along.
I had the pleasure of working for Stef almost 50 years ago. I was a freshman
at UCLA in 1961. Stef was on the staff of the Western Data Processing Center
(WDPC), one of two major data centers IBM had set up with universities to
foster the use of
In response to Sam's comment re whether the IAOC is responsive and/or
transparent, if this is indeed a problem it needs to be fixed. As a founding
member of the IAOC, I can attest that these two qualities, responsiveness and
transparency, were the driving concerns that led to the creation of
I did an interview for BBC Radio for New Year's Day several years ago about the
early days of developing the Arpanet. The closing question was why, in 1968,
we weren't at Woodstock. I replied, For us, computers were the drug of
choice.
Steve
On Jun 22, 2011, at 6:46 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
Hinden wrote:
Steve,
On May 9, 2011, at 5:05 PM, Steve Crocker wrote:
A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in the
boilerplate of every RFC that says, RFCs are available free of charge
online from ...
The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing
A simpler and more pragmatic approach is to include a statement in the
boilerplate of every RFC that says, RFCs are available free of charge online
from ...
The copyright rules would prohibit anyone from removing this statement. If
someone pays $47 for a copy and then reads this statement, he
Minor point: I think the proposal is to delegate authority but not to
relinquish responsibility.
Steve
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 30, 2011, at 8:32 AM, Michael StJohns mstjo...@comcast.net wrote:
Some suggestions:
Replace delegate their responsibilities with , by written action,
Mebbe. I confess I didn't study the details of the competing proposals at the
time because I was confident the people who were heavily involved surely had
things under control.
Steve
On Oct 10, 2010, at 6:41 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
On 10/10/2010 2:51 PM, Steve Crocker wrote
Let me say this more strongly. These two defects, it wasn't economically
feasible ... and it didn't offer any interesting/desirable new capabilities
were mild compared to an even bigger defect: There simply wasn't a technically
feasible plan on the table for co-existence and intercommunication
I've generally stayed out of this discussion, but let me offer a word
of support to Bob, et al re maintaining some flexibility. There are
two very strong protections already in place in this system. First,
the operation of the IAOC -- and IASA -- are fully documented and
visible. If the
I agree. That said, it's a bit challenging to get the right message across.
IPv4 hosts will continue to increase for quite a while, but address space will
increasingly hard to obtain. The large growth will come in the IPv6 space.
IPv6 networks and products are maturing but are still not yet
IPv6 networks and products are maturing but are still not on a par with *IPv4*
networks and services.
Apologies.
Steve
Sent from my iPad
On May 27, 2010, at 3:14 PM, Rumbidzayi Gadhula rumbi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 May 2010 16:11, Steve Crocker st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
I agree
Full disclosure: I serve on the ICANN board of directors, and I chair
ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC). Both of
these are volunteer, i.e. unpaid, positions, but ICANN does pay my
travel expenses for meetings.
It's mildly amusing to see how this thread has drifted
Dave,
Are you suggesting the IETF is not mature enough to meet in China?
After watching this thread for a while, I am beginning to be convinced.
Steve
On Oct 1, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
Hui,
Hui Deng wrote:
1) I personally have attended several standardization meetings
concerned about
prior restraint for the IETF as a whole as a price of holding a
meeting there.
At 03:55 PM 9/19/2009, Steve Crocker wrote:
The choice is between engaging and not engaging. Engaging is better.
Not engaging isn't constructive. The Internet and the IETF are all
about engaging
The choice is between engaging and not engaging. Engaging is better.
Not engaging isn't constructive. The Internet and the IETF are all
about engaging, expanding, communicating and being open. Much of this
dialog has been worried about possible extreme situations. Let's
focus on the
to
move in that direction. I'm just noting that even when IPv6 is widely
available and in broad use, there will be a long tail before IPv4
fades from the scene.
Steve
On Sep 17, 2009, at 2:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Steve Crocker st...@shinkuro.com wrote:
We're some
the world that we need to move to a production version.
Tony
From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
Steve Crocker
Sent: Thursday, September 17, 2009 6:30 AM
To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond
Cc: IETF Discussion
Subject: Re: IPv6 standard?
There are hundreds
We're some distance away from deprecating IPv4. Maybe 20 years, maybe
50 years. For a very long time, IPv6 and IPv4 will co-exist.
Steve
On Sep 16, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
Historic is appropriate when we want to make a statement about the
appropriateness of the technology.
I won't be in Hiroshima and won't be able to participate nor will I be
able to opt-out, so I don't have a personal stake in this and am
commenting only as an interested observer.
As has been noted, this won't be an absolutely clean, seamless
replacement of the blue sheets. The list of
This is indeed sad news. Steve was energetic and dedicated, and we
all benefitted greatly from his contributions.
Steve
On Jun 6, 2009, at 2:32 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
Steve Coya, the IETF's Executive Director at CNRI during much of the
1990's and early 2000's, has passed away. His wife,
I strongly advise against quick reallocation of returned AS numbers.
Returned AS numbers should stay out of service for a substantial
period of time.
The same should be true for other deactivated quantities such as
addresses, but that's a larger discussion.
Steve
On Apr 23, 2009, at
was required in this case. I know Vint and everyone wishes it
had not been necessary. However, after lengthy interaction and many
attempts to keep the discussion focused on the topic, it was necessary.
Steve Crocker
On Apr 18, 2009, at 5:46 PM, LB wrote:
Dear IETF Members,
Sorry, I do not speak
Brian,
Thanks. Re did anyone comment on RFC 1, I don't recall but it should
be easy to comb through the first several RFCs to see.
Steve
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 7, 2009, at 5:28 PM, Brian E Carpenter brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com
wrote:
Steve,
Thanks for writing such a nice piece.
[As entertainment for the audience, I am sure everyone will enjoy
seeing my brother and I take opposite sides in this discussion.
Enjoy ;) ]
I too have been watching this thread but from the vantage of having
been deeply involved in DNSSEC deployment and, more specifically, as
one of
[As entertainment for the audience, I am sure everyone will enjoy
seeing my brother and I take opposite sides in this discussion.
Enjoy ;) ]
I too have been watching this thread but from the vantage of having
been deeply involved in DNSSEC deployment and, more specifically, as
one of
, the
Security and Stability Advisory Committee. It includes a lot of
people we know, starting with Steve Crocker, the chair. I cannot ever
recall a time when ICANN acted contrary to the advice of the SSAC.
So although I agree that there's a lot not to like about ICANN, the
chances that they will do
While I appreciate the kind words and deference to SSAC, and while we
would undoubtedly concur with recommendations to reserve names
like .local, ICANN actually listens to the IETF more directly.
Moreover, there is a specific slot on the Board of ICANN for a
Liaison from the IETF. Thomas
Every so often someone suggests RFCs are not first class documents
and hence not comparable to, say, real standards documents.
Getting traditional identifiers attached to them might squelch some
of this nonsense.
Steve
On May 22, 2008, at 9:12 AM, Melinda Shore wrote:
On 5/22/08 8:51
Naw. The ISSN has to be on the document itself. As you point out,
this isn't something to be done with Internet Drafts, so it falls
naturally to the RFC Editor, not to the individual authors.
Steve
On May 22, 2008, at 3:14 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
Mostly sounds fine, with one small
discussed, don't
feel constrained to use ASCII. Use any notation and tools you like.
Steve
Steve Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Nov 17, 2005, at 10:09 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
If we want to enforce simpler, more accurate design the best way to do
this would be to require a formal proof
adding or saving time, work, errors, etc?
Steve
Steve Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Nov 17, 2005, at 11:56 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
There is a way, develop a highly targetted formalism for the specific
problem.
This is hard to apply to existing specs because they tend
medium.
I don't know whether this issue was covered in the TechSpec BoF
(http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/05nov/agenda/techspec.txt) but it
definitely needs attention. Perhaps this should be a separate thread
in the discussions about publications.
Steve
Steve Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED
to how to create an
alternative to the root servers.
Steve
Steve Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sep 30, 2005, at 9:21 AM, Elwyn Davies wrote:
Johan: I imagine you have seen this paper on the subject of a p2p
DNS substitute based on CHORD, but it is interesting reading for
others.
http
On Jun 23, 2005, at 12:45 PM, Ned Freed wrote: For anyone who was sleeping during the relevant Psych 101 lecture, this iscalled the Hawthorne effect. Damn. I knew there was a famous study that identified this effect, but Icouldn't remember the name. Doing anything at all gets folk's
...
Steve
Steve Crocker
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Jun 16, 2005, at 11:33 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
On Thu, Jun 16, 2005 at 03:43:25PM +0200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
(1) It is hard to fire WG chairs - they are often friends and
colleagues. Unfortunately, many stay
Comments in line below...
On Jun 14, 2005, at 5:31 AM, Geoff Huston wrote:
It seems to me that what would be required to do so would be three
statements:
ISOC's appointees do not represent ISOC, in the same way that IAB
and IESG appointees do not represent the IAB or IESG. They serve
In addition to choosing the right way to look at the distribution of
total action times, I strongly recommend breaking down the transactions
into component parts and looking at the details. The exchange I had
with Sam Hartman was a good example. On 5/23. Sam wrote:
I'd think two months
Ted,
I like your queuing theory formulation. A couple of easy things follow
from looking at it that way.
1. Burstiness should result in temporary queuing, but it shouldn't
result in continuously growing queues. It's relatively easy to separate
out the effects of insufficient capacity from
Well, I'm probably living in a very old universe, which may be out of date.
What numbers are more appropriate?
Thanks,
Steve
Bob Braden wrote:
* time for vacations, sick leave and day job, etc. (My intuition is that
* it shouldn't take more than about 2 days to get through each part
Sam,
Thanks. The IETF last call and scheduling of telechats are visible and
understandable. What's the figure for time for AD review?
Steve
Sam Hartman wrote:
Steve == Steve Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve Well, I'm probably living in a very old universe, which may
.
Steve
Sam Hartman wrote:
Steve == Steve Crocker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve Sam, Thanks. The IETF last call and scheduling of
Steve telechats are visible and understandable. What's the
Steve figure for time for AD review?
I'm not the best person to ask; my sample set
paradigm.
Doug Engelbart located node nr2 (first was Larry Roberts'). He created
the NIC and if I am correct hired Steve Crocker and Jon Postel (if
people here can confirm? I try to rebuild the links and dates. The
history of the thinking/doctrine is very interesting to understand the
design). You
Kevin Loch wrote:
As you know, the value of a network is roughly proportional to
the square of the participants.
Or maybe not. See Andrew Odlyzko's paper, _A refutation of Metcalfes
Law,
http://www.dtc.umn.edu/%7Eodlyzko/doc/metcalfe.pdf_www.dtc.umn.edu/~odlyzko/doc/metcalfe.pdf
Steve
John,
Thanks for your note.
Russ,
Let me add a comment, noting that I'm currently on the ISOC board and
also on the IASA Transition Team. Since the Transition Team is
essentially an interim (and restricted) version of the IAOC, I'm roughly
in the position of being the ISOC-appointed person to
I have not been paying close attention to the debate over this section
of the BCP before, so I may be covering a point that's been made before.
I think there will necessarily be a mixture of formal and informal
processes at work once the IASA is in operation. The IAOC is intended
to be at
I'm glad we're drilling down into this level of specificity. I sit on
the ISOC board and also on the IASA Transition Team, so I'm reading this
with both my ISOC hat and a proto-IAOC hat on. (But I'm speaking just
for myself, not others on the board or the transition team.)
We can try to
Harald, et al,
It looks like the BCP process is moving along nicely. Meanwhile, within
ISOC, we're studying the draft and focusing on how best to provide the
right procedures and support for the IETF. Some ISOC folks have
offered up suggestions already. We will try to provide a more
(2) Is it generally understood that the ISOC BoT already
usually meets on Saturday and/or Sunday before the IETF
meetings and that those meetings are open?
Usually yes, but in this particular case, I believe the ISOC Board of
Trustees meeting is Nov 12-13, after the IETF meeting. If we want
:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Wijnen, Bert (Bert)
Sent: 12 September 2004 19:41
To: Steve Crocker; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: first steps (was The other parts of the report...)
Exactly, I agree with Steve here.
-Original Message-
From: Steve Crocker [mailto:[EMAIL
Eric, you specified exactly the right answer:
In a perfect system, someone would go to the IETF's official
I-D page, enter a draft name, and get a prominent pointer to
the most recent version (even if it is now an RFC or a
draft with a different name), along with a less prominent
A brief comment on one specific aspect of meeting planning...
In broad terms, the planning for a meeting is partionable, rather
cleanly, into two pieces. One is the envelope of arranging for the
hotel, an inventory of large and small meeting rooms, the terminal room,
the external network
mulitple
modes of access built into the current relationship.
Steve
-Original Message-
From: Leslie Daigle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 6:09 PM
To: Steve Crocker
Cc: 'Wijnen, Bert (Bert)';
[EMAIL PROTECTED]'.cnri.reston.va.us; [EMAIL PROTECTED
Bert, et al.,
Thanks for your note. I too have watched the evolution of the
relationship with CNRI for a long time. I served on the IESG from 1989
to 1994 when Phill gross was the IETF chair, and I served on the IAB for
another two years. I co-chaired the POISED working group which
reorganized
68 matches
Mail list logo
